tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-121325693164358755.post5876974245906532392..comments2023-05-06T08:19:26.226-07:00Comments on Sufficiency: Sets of three - the whole of sinBob MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11335631079939764763noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-121325693164358755.post-58310541576556200562009-08-06T12:00:13.718-07:002009-08-06T12:00:13.718-07:00Beth - I was thinking more of a merism (enumeratio...Beth - I was thinking more of a merism (enumeration of the parts to indicate the whole) rather than an Aristotelian decomposition. But it is nice to see another threefold division.Bob MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11335631079939764763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-121325693164358755.post-21731048143312234752009-08-06T11:43:13.262-07:002009-08-06T11:43:13.262-07:00Three-fold sins. Reminds me of the Aristotelian a...Three-fold sins. Reminds me of the Aristotelian anthropology that Aquinas picks up, that human beings have a three-dimensional soul. They have a vegetative soul (which they share with all created living things), an animalic soul (shared with animals), and a rational soul which only humans have. If we take this anthropology seriously, we could say that the three-fold division of sin corresponds to the three dimensions of the soul (sins of the eyes, sins of the flesh like lust, and sins of the rational part of the soul like pride, respectively). That is, sin is not just an intellectual matter but actually engages the full essence of humanity in all of its dimensions. And hence, the effects of sin are seen in all the dimensions of humanity (we die, we feel pain, and we suffer existentially and mentally.)Bethhttp://everydaythomist.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com